ty for stealing this one much appreciated
people in the notes suggesting it was "improper" for the juror to do this or that it "introduced bias" to the court proceeding đ the ice agent in question accused a moc of assaulting him / resisting arrest. how is the agent being a white supremacist not relevant. what universe are you living in
A juror was held in criminal contempt and fined more than $11k for researching his case online. The man, named as Stephen Miele, told other
As a member of the worldâs SECOND oldest profession, I assure you this is just one of many ways the justice system is systematically fucked up.
For anyone who wants to know how to fact check something you are told while on jury duty without getting fined:
First, you need to understand that the rule that jurors canât just google things is coming from a good place. Like imagine that you are on a jury thatâs considering, say, a medical malpractice lawsuit and one of your fellow jurors comes into the jury room and says to you, âI think the victimâs expert was lying because WebMD totally contradicts everything they said.â
And you might be like, âBut WebMD is notoriously unreliable website and the expert youâre talking about is a researcher from Mayo Clinic.â But this person cannot be swayed.
Like, we can all agree that would be bad.
So even though these rules can contribute to unjust outcomes as in the case above (and seriously, the fact that the defense attorney didnât fact check that is probably grounds for legal malpractice), they also prevent jurors from just looking up bullshit online and taking it more seriously than the actual experts the court has put on. And I think in the era of anti-vaxxers/QAnon/COVID denial/etc., we can all understand why itâs a bad idea to trust that people can tell fact from bullshit online.
So in light of this, how do you as a juror fact check something?
The key here is that you have to ask the court for information. Jurors can ask questions of the court during deliberations, so if something you said sounds off to you, you can ask for more information.
The key term you want to use here is âcredibility.â
The job of a jury is to decide what are called âquestions of fact.â Long before the trial even starts, lawyers will have hashed out all the âquestions of lawâ --- like, what the statute of limitations is; what laws, exactly, were allegedly broken; whether the court youâre in even has jurisdiction; stuff like that. Jurors are responsible for deciding which sideâs version of the facts has more credibility.
For instance, if the prosecutionâs witness says X and the defenseâs witness says Y, the jury is responsible for deciding which is true, X or Y. And you do this by weighing which one is more credible.
So in this case, if the juror had known to, he could have told the judge, âIn order to properly assess the ICE agentâs credibility, I need more information about his tattoo. I have doubts about whether he was telling the truth about it, which would impact how credible I would find his testimony. Can the agent please provide evidence that it really is what he says it is?â
There are a lot of problems with our legal system, and I think one of the biggest is that jurors arenât educated about what they can and canât do. Juries have a lot of power, if (and only if) they know how to use it.
Reblogging for that last post, because frankly, âwhat to do as a jurorâ is one of those things the schools should really be teaching us. Serving on a jury is one of the most powerful rights of citizenship and everyone should be educated in how to exercise it correctly.
